Religion
Related: About this forumA Big Question About Little Sisters of the Poor
January 2, 2014
9:24AM
Post by Sarah Posner
Justice Sonia Sotomayor's New Year's Eve granting of the request by Little Sisters of the Poor and other Catholic organizations to enjoin (temporarily) the Obama administration from enforcing the birth control coverage requirement made for overblown headlines like "Supreme Court Halts Birth Control Mandate for Catholic Group" and "Birth-control rule a hitch as health law takes effect."
In reality, Justice Sotomayor only stayed the court of appeals' denial of Little Sisters' request for an injunction; in other words, her ruling only temporarily stops the government from enforcing the regulation against Little Sisters and its co-plaintiffs. How the case will ultimately turn out is far from clear.
But as Georgetown Law School's Marty Lederman points out in a new post at Balkanization, the hitch is not in the law, but in Little Sisters' case itself.
Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of nuns that operates nursing homes for the poor, is, like other religious non-profits, subject to the accommodation that the administration crafted last year in response to objections that religious non-profits, like houses of worship, should be fully exempt from the rule. The accommodation requires them to self-certify as objecting religious organizations, thus placing the onus on their insurance plan's third-party administrator to offer the coverage separately to employees. Objecting non-profits claim this arrangement still makes them complicit in providing the coverage they consider sinful, in that the self-certification would "authorize" and "direct" the coverage through the third-party administrator.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/7476/a_big_question_about_little_sisters_of_the_poor/
This is a solid analysis.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)and probably never will (for example men and celibate individuals), want to control the options of women who are sexually active, of childbearing age, and/or victims of rape or incest.
As far as I'm concerned, they don't have any standing, in the legal sense, to be making the decisions for other people.
rug
(82,333 posts)LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)Saying that the Little Sisters should not have legal standing to bring suit since they are not really an affected party.
rug
(82,333 posts)There's more than one issue floating around here.
elleng
(131,125 posts)'Justice Sotomayor only stayed the court of appeals' denial of Little Sisters' request for an injunction; in other words, her ruling only temporarily stops the government from enforcing the regulation against Little Sisters and its co-plaintiffs.'
Thanks.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)which has resulted in a great deal of unwarranted outrage at this point.
I hope more people will read this analysis and get clarity on what is actually happening here.
Kudos to Ms. Posner, who generally does an excellent job.